Discontinue rating buttons

[dzheremi]

It was a reminder as to the cliques that are pretty mindless imho

What cliques?

You mean like the different subforums?

 

[PloverWing]

Why not post it?

If I genuinely have something extra to add to the conversation, I'll post in reply. But if all I have to say is "Yup, I agree", then I feel like I don't want to clutter the news feed. I imagine a string of posts: "I agree" "Me too" "And me" etc, not really furthering the conversation.

There's something to be said for a "sorry" button and a "disagree" button, as jahel noted. A "disagree" button might be used for goading, so that's a problem. But something to say "what you just said was sad, and I'm sad with you" might be good (like Facebook's "sad" button).

 

[paul1149]

Using the ratings to goad is against the rules (presumably they have in mind the "funny" rating). I understand the ratings can get distracting. They can even become an idol if you get your eyes off the main purpose of creating good content rather than garnering ratings. But I liken them to being in a room of people. The British Parliament comes to mind. When someone says something, there is a response from the audience, be it good or bad. We don't allow the bad here, to keep it positive.

One variation on ratings was available in the old software, and was used on some other sites. You could give the poster a heads-up, and it would accrue to his reputation but would not be reflected in individual posts. So it worked pretty silently. Not sure whether that's better or not.

The ratings bar could be hidden by use of a user style sheet, if desired. I currently hide the user cumulative reputation to the left of each post, because I found it too distracting.

 

[Michie]

What cliques?

You mean like the different subforums?

Of there are cliques for sure. It’s called the people that agree with one another.

 

[jahel]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I didn’t have the option to agree with myself

 

[Chesterton]

not sure where to post this but it’s becoming more than obvious what a farce they are.

If they have to have them I wish they at least didn't keep a tally. There's no need for that.

 

[Michie]

I didn’t have the option to agree with myself

Everyone tends to agree with what they are saying or they would not say it.

 

[dzheremi]

Of there are cliques for sure. It’s called the people that agree with one another.

You can't agree with someone without forming a clique with them? That's silly. You're silly.

 

[Michie]

If they have to have them I wish they at least didn't keep a tally. There's no need for that.

Now that’s an interesting contribution ...

 

[jahel]

Using the ratings to goad is against the rules (presumably they have in mind the "funny" rating). I understand the ratings can get distracting. They can even become an idol if you get your eyes off the main purpose of creating good content rather than garnering ratings. But I liken them to being in a room of people. The British Parliament comes to mind. When someone says something, there is a response from the audience, be it good or bad. We don't allow the bad here, to keep it positive.

One variation on ratings was available in the old software, and was used on some other sites. You could give the poster a heads-up, and it would accrue to his reputation but would not be reflected in individual posts. So it worked pretty silently. Not sure whether that's better or not.

The ratings bar could be hidden by use of a user style sheet, if desired. I currently hide the user cumulative reputation to the left of each post, because I found it too distracting.

A disagree button would be informative to the poster also.

 

[Michie]

You can't agree with someone without forming a clique with them? That's silly. You're silly.

Of course I’m silly! But people tend to think that liberals agree with liberals, conservatives the same, atheists, etc. those that obsess over who liked who, etc. tend to think it is because they are in a clique. Some are. Some aren’t. It’s kind of projecting but it is what it is with human nature.

 

[jahel]

You can't agree with someone without forming a clique with them? That's silly. You're silly.

Think I can use the report button for that one ...

 

[bèlla]

A thumbs down is preferable to retorts on hot button subjects. That rarely goes well.

And yes, I’ve seen insta-likes too. If they want to support their friends that’s fine.

~Bella

 

[Mathetes66]

I didn’t have the option to agree with myself

That is a good one! LOL. However, you might consider the funny story: one day me, myself & I got together. We had a disagreement & sought to work it out. I won of course!

 

[jahel]

That is a good one! LOL. However, you might consider the funny story: one day me, myself & I got together. We had a disagreement & sought to work it out. I won of course!

 

[Michie]

This is a fun thread.

 

[jahel]

It can also be discouraging for someone to post something that clarifies a post they agree with when many are agreeing with another stance. Familiarity breeds contempt.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

not sure where to post this but it’s becoming more than obvious what a farce they are.

They should only have the Like, Agree and Prayer icons.


.

 

[Michie]

It can also be discouraging for someone to post something that clarifies a post they agree with when many are agreeing with another stance. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Well, that’s part of being on an internet forum I guess. We just cannot read words like we would face to face. Buttons are just part of the fun as long as it is not goading.

 

[jahel]

They should only have the Like, Agree and Prayer icons..

But the prayer button was being reported because someone was actually disagreeing with what they said.